44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Documents and Settings\thomast\Local Settings\Temp\c.lotus ...$

He also refunded $2,000 to Mr. Butler. Finally, these do appear to be isolated failures. Mr. Chapman testified that he believed his firm successfully negotiated loan modifications for approximately 95% of the clients that engaged their services. II. Legal Analysis The Attorney Grievance Commission contends that it presented clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Chapman violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 8.4 of the <strong>Maryland</strong> Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) in his representation of Ms. Bogarosh, and that he violated all of the same, with the exception of Rule 1.1, in his representation of Mr. Butler. A. MRPC 1.1 MRPC 1.1 provides: A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. The Commission contends that Mr. Chapman failed to provide competent representation to Ms. Bogarosh, essentially arguing that he provided no legal services whatsoever by delegating to others. In addition, the Commission argues Ms. Bogarosh should have been advised earlier that she may need to file for bankruptcy to delay the foreclosure proceeding. In response, Mr. Chapman argues that he retained JW Capital to provide consulting services, and that they diligently pursued the loan modification on behalf of Ms. Bogarosh. Further, he argues Ms. Bogarosh was well aware of the bankruptcy option, as she had pursued that approach in an earlier loan modification. The evidence presented does not support a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the representation was not competent. Curiously, throughout these proceedings, there was no evidence of any different strategy or approach that should have been employed. Clearly the nature of the loan 24
modification practice is a labor intensive effort to present information to a bank to endeavor to persuade it not to pursue foreclosure and to modify the terms of an existing loan. There was no testimony that Ms. Bogarosh qualified for a modification option that was not pursued. Similarly, there was no evidence that the bank’s failure to grant the modification request, or its failure to grant the request to delay the foreclosure sale were based upon some fault or neglect in the manner this was pursued. In fact, review of the Chapman Firm file for this representation documents regular follow up with the bank by the JW Capital associate, generally on a weekly basis, in an attempt to advance the efforts. JW Capital appears to have taken the appropriate steps to seek modification. The simple fact that a modification was not obtained does not necessarily imply a lack of competence in the pursuit. This allegation is simply not supported by the evidence. B. MRPC 1.3 MRPC 1.3 provides: A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. The Commission argues that Mr. Chapman failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in pursing the Bogarosh and Butler loan modifications. In the Bogarosh matter, they point primarily to the ten month delay, with no result. In the Butler matter, they argue that Mr. Butler would not have continued to pursue representation if he had been told that credit card debt was an impediment. The Court does not find clear and convincing evidence of a violation of MRPC 1.3. The fact that the Firm was unable to achieve a desired outcome is not, in and of itself, evidence of a lack of diligent pursuit. As noted above, the Firm files from both the Bogarosh and the Butler representations clearly document a persistent series of contacts with lenders in an effort to advance the modification requests. Fundamentally, neither of these cases presented circumstances where the client was entitled to the requested relief. Both clients acknowledged they were told at the outset that the Firm could not guarantee they would receive a loan 25
Page 1 and 2: Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ge
Page 3 and 4: Gerald Frederick Chapman, Responden
Page 5 and 6: 1.4 (Communication), 5 1.5 (Fees),
Page 7 and 8: 1.15 (Safekeeping Property), 7 (...
Page 9 and 10: 8 (...continued) staffed on a full-
Page 11 and 12: 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law),
Page 13 and 14: Pursuant to Rule 16-757, 12 in an o
Page 15 and 16: 2012, on the Petition for Disciplin
Page 17 and 18: efforts to secure clients for the C
Page 19 and 20: dispute regarding guardianship for
Page 21 and 22: on August 4, 2010, she responded to
Page 23 and 24: communicated and verified a new pho
Page 25: obtaining loan modifications for an
Page 29 and 30: In the Bogarosh matter, the records
Page 31 and 32: MRPC 1.15 provides: (a) A lawyer sh
Page 33 and 34: can be avoided or mitigated but fai
Page 35 and 36: arrangement was characterized, it r
Page 37 and 38: substance of the representation of
Page 39 and 40: violations of Rules 1.5(a) and 1.15
Page 41 and 42: e for services rendered by the law
Page 43 and 44: makes clear that an attorney must c
Page 45 and 46: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
Page 47: with the loan modification efforts,

44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?